Editor's Note:Keep up with all the legislative action starting Tuesday in social media reports from @IsadoraRangel2 and our Naples and Tampa news partners @ArekSarkissian and @JeffSchweersTBO.

Some environmentalists say a bill that changes state water regulations will hurt Lake Okeechobee — and inherently the Indian River Lagoon — by allowing farmers to decide how they will reduce pollution with no deadlines and weak enforcement.

Other environmentalists agree the bill isn't perfect, but say the Legislature has made significant progress in adding enforcement measures compared to last year's version.

After two years in the making, the controversial water bill is ready to be heard on the House and Senate floors when the 2016 legislative session starts Tuesday.

This is a legacy issue for Speaker Steve Crisafulli, a Merritt Island Republican who represents the northern end of the lagoon, and is likely to be one of the first pieces of legislation lawmakers send to Gov. Rick Scott's desk in 2016.

That's despite two Hail Mary's in December: protests led by the Sierra Club and a letter 106 environmental and civic organizations signed to convince legislators to make the bill stricter.

RULE CHANGES

SB 552 and HB 7005 cover a lot of ground, from springs and parks to water supply in Central Florida.

The part that matters most to the Treasure Coast has been controversial since lawmakers first introduced similar bill versions last year, when the Legislature adjourned early without addressing them because of an impasse over Medicaid expansion.

That part changes the way the state regulates pollution in farm runoff flowing into Lake Okeechobee. Florida today uses a permitting program that mandates water entering the lake must meet certain maximum levels of phosphorus contained in fertilizers. Under the bill, the South Florida Water Management District still would have permits for the quantity of runoff water that can enter the lake, but not the quality, said Eric Draper, Audubon Florida executive director.

Pollution levels would be regulated instead by a cleanup plan that, among other actions, requires farmers to follow "best management practices" to reduce pollution leaving their land. Those practices are voluntary guidelines farmers themselves developed, such as not fertilizing amid heavy rain forecasts.

HONOR SYSTEM

These practices are at the core of what David Guest, managing attorney for the environmental group Earthjustice, described as a plan where "you take all the speed limits and remove all the traffic lights." That's because as long as farmers implement these measures, they are considered to be in compliance with the law.

After environmentalists raised concerns about the practices last year, the Legislature added new language that specifies the cleanup plans are enforceable. The state can inspect whether farmers are following the practices and subject them to penalties. The bill does not detail why, when or how inspections would be conducted; what would lead to a penalty; and what the penalty would be.

The bill now also requires the Department of Environmental Protection to evaluate whether the practices are working to reduce pollution and change them if necessary.

Yet the bill doesn't ask for additional money for the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to hire new employees to perform inspections, making them largely unfeasible to achieve, Sierra Club lobbyist David Cullen said. And even if the state changes the practices, farmers can negotiate with the state to make them as lax as possible, Cullen said.

With a permit in place, on the other hand, farmers either comply or lose it, he said.

NEXT BEST THING

Permits are better, but lawmakers haven't shown any signs they will budge, said Draper, who's a top environmental lobbyist and who worked with lawmakers to strengthen the bill. Having enforceable best management practices is the next best thing.

"Environmental advocacy, like everything else, is the craft of compromise," Draper said. "A permit is better to require a discharger to meet a water quality standard, but we lost that battle."

Republican Senate President-elect Joe Negron of Stuart was the only senator who voted against the water bill last year because of the lack of enforcement. He said he likes the new provisions and supports this year's version — as long as the added enforcement stays in the bill.

Require landowners to hold more water on their land instead of discharging it into Lake Okeechobee;

Restrict fertilizer use around the lake and the Everglades; and

Require local governments to connect septic tanks near troubled waterways to sewer lines. If a sewer line isn't available, local governments should be required to install them, as was done in the Florida Keys after a state mandate in the 1990s.

Guest, the Earthjustice attorney, would revoke farmers' permits if they don't reduce pollution through best management practices within a certain time frame. He also would require farmers to use irrigation methods that use less water to preserve the state's water supply.

"What you have to do is, you have to use water in a way that reflects its real value and the interest of future Floridians," Guest said.

About Isadora Rangel

Isadora covers politics, elections and the state Legislature. She graduated from Florida International University and has worked at Treasure Coast Newspapers since 2011. Isadora was born in Brazil and speaks Portuguese and Spanish fluently.